Not quite, they should make the default position of a person a YES, and if said person really didn't want to be a donor he would be required to make some bureaucratic steps to avoid having his organs donated

It's just a matter of principle, having your organs (one of the few things you can rightfully call yours without any real argument against it) automatically revert to the state upon death by default position just seems awfully totalitarian.

I'd imagine informing people about choosing organ donation would have a similar effect as making it the default position, i'd guess most people would choose it in any case.

The bureaucracy was included in the third option by the OP. Or, did you opt-out of reading it?

The OP mentions a bureaucratic process to opt out. It makes no mention of how difficult the process would be. You made the assumption is would be obtuse, despite stating in the preceding sentence that the current bureaucratic process to opt in is easy. Therefore, your previous statement about opting in contradicts the implicit assumption in what you said that opting out would be obtuse. If one is easy, both can be. Now, either you were putting that in there to try and subtly undercut the idea of opting out with baseless assumptions, or you simply intended some other meaning and used a poor choice of words. If the latter, I'd probably edit your post to remove the word obtuse since it implies something which isn't necessarily true. I even included a way in which to make the process quite straight forward.

Many people don't opt in because they never bother to think about it or put in the minimum of effort required to do so.

114,000 people on the waiting list at any given time. Only 6,800 transplants happened in the first 3 months of the year. Based on death rates in 2007, 2.5 million people died. Are you going to tell me that out of, let's say 625,000 deaths on average in a 3 month period, only 6800 organs were viable matches to the 114,000 people waiting? People obviously aren't donating enough.

Not quite mandatory, but it would be nice if the position at this point are reversed, so you're a donor by default, and it's pretty easy to opt out of it.I mean, for me it'll hardly matter; they've already had permission to gut me for parts since I was 14 (although I'll have to update the list of what they're allowed to take sometime, since I left out my eyes, heart and lungs out of squeamishness), but it would help a lot if more people were donors.

I have no problems donating my organs. I have a problem with someone not saving my life just to take my organs. It's always a scary thought that the choice might come up that there is a 30% chance to live, but if we act now, we can harvest the organs.

Things are fine the way they are; No donation by default, but insanely easy to opt in.Making things mandatory is bad, and making an obtuse bureaucracy to opt out is worse.

Well, things aren't fine the way they are, because there's huge waiting lists to get organs which they need to continue living, and which the dead most definitely don't need.

OT: I say make it opt-out.

People are bizzarely sentimental and opting-in obviously isn't working. Presumably this'd go some way to eliminating black-market circles where people who ARE still alive are having their organs harvested.

If people do care they'll opt-out, right now it's a matter of laziness, ignorance of the system, and "ewww, don't fucking cut me up". If it's a matter of spirituality or religion (which, still... bullshit) then they'll care enough to go through a few measly steps.

I mean, in the UK I think it's a bloody tick-box on the .gov site. It's not an arduous process, but it's not there. Increase awareness, make it opt-out.

114,000 people on the waiting list at any given time. Only 6,800 transplants happened in the first 3 months of the year. Based on death rates in 2007, 2.5 million people died. Are you going to tell me that out of, let's say 625,000 deaths on average in a 3 month period, only 6800 organs were viable matches to the 114,000 people waiting? People obviously aren't donating enough.

madwarper:Again, I'm going to have to call for citations on the claim both of you are making that people haven't opted-in because they're either lazy or apathetic.

Has the thought that people who haven't opted in have done so because they DO. NOT. WANT. they're organs taken ever occurred to you?

And, even if they "never bother to think about it", where do you get the gaul to assume that they would have wanted their organs harvested?

So let's see. I provide citations indicating that actual organ donation is likely far below the rather high support for it, indicating that either people aren't opting in despite supporting donation, or a large percentage of the population are liars and hypocrites. You respond by asking for a citation supporting the thing I just gave you citations on.

Sorry, but I'm done. Not my problem if you can't be bothered to click a few links and connect the dots when I literally spell it out for you.

As to your last statement, it's not gaul to assume people who don't opt out would want their organs taken. It's common sense. People tend to get a lot more fired up at the thought of being forced to do something they don't want to do than choosing to do something which has no direct effect on their life. Safe bet that the majority who don't want to donate would make the effort to opt out.

You know what a good rule would be? If you're not a donor, you're not getting any organs when you're dying. Let them die the same slow death as the child they refused to save by not donating organs.

The thing is, you're not going to get many donors when the only reward is 'the opportunity to be a good person', because people are too damn selfish. In the end we're just scared, hypocritical beings.

We all preach how the world's problems must be dealt with, but when we get the chance to do our part we shy away at the first sign of sacrifice, eventhough I could hardly call it that, since you'd be dead anyway. Fuck people's 'comfort with the idea'. Let's see about their 'comfort with the idea' when it means they wouldn't be getting any organs themselves. Let's see how comfortable they'd be THEN, huh?

Then there's the pseudo-intellectuals who hide behind arguments like heavy smokers having bad lungs and the like, but guess what, that same heavy smoker probably has 10 other organs which are still properly functioning and could save 10 different people.

People just fucking tick me off when it comes to subjects like these. Just look at this thread and you'll see exactly what's wrong with humanity.

No, as much as I support good use of organs and the ability it gives to save lives, you can't expect people to be forced into giving them up when they dieMany people are scared of the idea, some have religious beliefs that turn against that sort of action, I've even heard from people that they are not doners due to stories of people having their organs removed upon being falsely pronounced dead (Like how sometimes a pulse is not picked up right, although I'm not too sure on the validity of those stories, yet that's not the point, it scares them)So, no, people deserve a choice, and it should be easy for them to choose yes or noI do however believe there should be more awareness around organ donning, and more of a positive outlook on it from mainstream media, thus to promote it. Because it is quite beneficial.

Your dead, you no longer need them. Why not give them to someone who needs them? If everyone was required to donate their organs maybe the scarce resource of organs wouldn't be so high and everyone wouldn't have to be worried about getting your heart ripped out the second you looks "slightly" dead.

But then again I'm an organ donor (so I'm biased) and my ideas to "fix" society are controversial to say the least.

114,000 people on the waiting list at any given time. Only 6,800 transplants happened in the first 3 months of the year. Based on death rates in 2007, 2.5 million people died. Are you going to tell me that out of, let's say 625,000 deaths on average in a 3 month period, only 6800 organs were viable matches to the 114,000 people waiting? People obviously aren't donating enough.

Support for organ donation, at least in the circumstances they investigated, is quite high.

Again, I'm going to have to call for citations on the claim both of you are making that people haven't opted-in because they're either lazy or apathetic.

Has the thought that people who haven't opted in have done so because they DO. NOT. WANT. they're organs taken ever occurred to you?

And, even if they "never bother to think about it", where do you get the gaul to assume that they would have wanted their organs harvested?

I suppose it's just common sense to assume at least some of the population are too lazy to opt in. I never said everyone who didn't opt in is lazy, but a notable amount will just be lazy.

And it's better to assume they don't mind then they do. If they care that much, they opt out, but you shouldn't just assume they don't want them harvested. I'd rather have people go through the irritance of opting out than letting people die unnecessarily.

By "the way things are" you mean "chronic shortage of donor organs globally, because nobody can be arsed to sign up for organ donation".

No... that's not "fine the way they are" at all.

I am curious to hear from the no crowd who ARN'T willing to donate, why they arn't willing. I mean, if you're dead, you're dead. They're not going to do you a lot of good, you honestly think the best way to finish up is to say "Oh hey all you dying guys who need transplants. Well tough shit, I'm taking these to the grave with me. See you later IN THE [afterlife or nonexistance of choice] )

Yes, yes. Signing an organ donor card is uncomfortable because for once in your life you have to admit the fact you are mortal, and one day you MIGHT end up dead before your time, but come on... don't you have a backbone? (Even if you didn't, they don't usually take those as donations so you'd still be accepted)

BathorysGraveland:I don't think so, no. If someone wishes to donate their organs after death, that is great (I wouldn't though). However, not everyone would find comfort in the idea. Some would prefer to be left intact to rest in peace. And their families may also not be comfortable with the idea of their deceased friend/family member having their parts taken out.

Basically what he/she said. Some people have taboos and/or different beliefs regarding that sort of thing and as much as we might think it's stupid or don't agree with it, we shouldn't have the right to force them to do something they don't believe in.

Basically what he/she said. Some people have taboos and/or different beliefs regarding that sort of thing and as much as we might think it's stupid or don't agree with it, we shouldn't have the right to force them to do something they don't believe in.

But should one person's right to be buried whole, over-ride someone elses right to recieve medical treatment that will save their life.

They pay for their perfect burial, at the cost of a complete strangers LIFE. Honestly that is the most expensive burial since the egyptian pharoahs (Where they used to have their entire servant entourage buried alive with them)

Valiard:The real issue to tackle is what defines dead? I mean would coma victims be considered and after how long? what about the homeless? My worry is that if it defaults to auto in you could be finding organs everywhere who knows where they came from...

What issues? Death is defined by the brain having no activity (aka brain dead). The brain is too damaged for there to be any electrical activity.

Why are you confusing general practice medicine with the black market?

It should be opt out. Some have said this would lead to doctors maybe not saving someones life to get an organ but if everyone is automatically an organ donor we could end up swimming in spare parts so there would be a desperation that would cause this.

Though hopefully soon we can start just growing organs cheaply and this will become a non-issue. One can but hope.

I'm under the impression that a person still has to be somewhat alive for their organs to be viable for transplant. By that logic, someone must decide to, and act on harvesting your organs before you've actually died.

Yes, I know there are levels of existence that people do not recover from where such a decision would be easy to make, whether it's the individual themselves or their family.

Diminished Capacity:I'm under the impression that a person still has to be somewhat alive for their organs to be viable for transplant. By that logic, someone must decide to, and act on harvesting your organs before you've actually died.

That impression would be wrong. Yes, you can have situations where someone is brain dead and the body is only being kept alive by machines, but the body doesn't have to be alive to harvest organs. You just have so much time to get the organs out, keep them cool and transplant them into the patient who needs them. I believe it can be as much as several hours depending on how quickly they can get the organs out. But many people who are at a hospital when they die, die during surgery, or die on the way to the hospital may be viable organ donors if doctors are able to get to them in time.

A person absolutely does not need to be "somewhat alive", whatever that even means, to donate, and saying no based on a false assumption isn't a good idea.

I realize you admitted you don't know too much about it though so I'm not trying to criticize you or anything. Just trying to help chip away some of the misconceptions some people seem to have.

Well, I wish to be cremated and my ashes scattered at a specific place, and I'd rather my whole being be at that place. I don't really feel comfortable with my body being tampered beforehand and me only being partially scattered. If that makes any sense. It might be selfish, but there it is.

I don't like the idea of it being mandatory. It should be up to the person themselves (or their relatives/next of kin if the person dies beforehand) to decide what happens with their body after they are dead

Well, I wish to be cremated and my ashes scattered at a specific place, and I'd rather my whole being be at that place. I don't really feel comfortable with my body being tampered beforehand and me only being partially scattered. If that makes any sense. It might be selfish, but there it is.

After they've been scattered the ashes will remain there for all of 3 seconds before they are blown away. Is there some superstition attributed to this (again if you don't mind me asking)